PDA

View Full Version : Question for my american cousins



thefruitbat
02-13-2008, 09:58 AM
Over the other side of the pond, back here in Blighty, it's pretty hard not to see the news about your forthcoming elections.

Most of the press here, is of course about Hillary and Obama, since it looks like the republican race is already over.

My question is though, what about the actual election itself, is the Hillary/Obama battle going to matter, when they come up against McCain?

What's the word on the street, who is going to win, Democrats or Republicans?

From an interested englishman, who has no idea who's favourite?

fruitbat

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-13-2008, 10:12 AM
I think america is tired of republican governemnt and will elect the democrat just for something new. Of course I thought there was no way we would elect that villian bush to a second term so what the heck do I know, lol.

Stew278
02-13-2008, 10:13 AM
It seems like the general consensus is that unless the Democrats really mess up somehow their candidate will probably win. This is largely due backlash from the pent-up hostility towards the current president (kind of like the Democrat party's landslide during the '06 congressional races).

As for Hillary or Obama, who knows? One week one is ahead, the next week the other. One thing the Dems need to keep in mind is that even though Hillary tests well with women and minorities, she doesn't do so well with men. According to some recent poles (on CNN) a fair number of men that consider themselves independents would sooner vote for McCain than Hillary. Gotta say I'm not too thrilled about a presidential candidate that resorts to crocodile tears to get votes.

And lets not forget that some of the die hard right wing conservatives have claimed they would sooner vote for Hillary than McCain (yeah right, I'll believe it when I see it). In some ways the Republicans made a crafty move by voting for McCain; he's actually liberal enough to appeal to independent voters and maybe even some democrats. Their other 2 major candidates would likely have meant certain defeat.

willyvic
02-13-2008, 10:13 AM
Personal thoughts:

If Hillary is in, McCain takes it.

If Obama is in, very close race. I honestly don't know which one of them will triumph.

WV.

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-13-2008, 10:29 AM
I was watching the victory speeches last night and noticed a profound difference in obama's speech and mccains. Obamas speech was entirely about change and hope and how we as a nation can change if we want it badly enough and good things can come from hard work. Switched to mccains speech and all he could say was how full of BS the other guys were. Instead of saying anything of substance he said how the other guys will say things of substance but not mean it, lol.

thefruitbat
02-13-2008, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
I was watching the victory speeches last night and noticed a profound difference in obama's speech and mccains. Obamas speech was entirely about change and hope and how we as a nation can change if we want it badly enough and good things can come from hard work. Switched to mccains speech and all he could say was how full of BS the other guys were. Instead of saying anything of substance he said how the other guys will say things of substance but not mean it, lol.

There's to much of that in politics everywhere, its all the opposition parties do in the uk. Its much easier to smash someone elses idea, than to have your own idea.

Sounds like it's going to be close, whoever wins, thanks for the replies so far!

fruitbat

Low_Flyer_MkIX
02-13-2008, 10:40 AM
Another question from an intrigued foriegner -

Do you think if Mrs Clinton got in, Mr Clinton would keep a low profile as 'First Gentleman'? Is this having any bearing on matters? Would he been seen as an asset or a liability?

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-13-2008, 10:44 AM
If hilary gets the nomination I can't wait to see who her running mate will be, lol. Wouldn't put it past her to use bill, "Good afternoon President Clinton, Vice President Clinton", lol.

Tater-SW-
02-13-2008, 10:46 AM
willyvic FTW.

With Hillary I think McCain wins, with Obama it's close, but McCain is still the underdog, IMO. For McCain to beat Obama I think Obama will need to really put his foot in his mouth, and get beaten up in some debates.

It's the democrat's race to lose, in other words.

Regarding the speeches mentioned, Obama talks about hope, etc, but hasn't actually said much about specific policies. Being positive, but not being required to explain HOW is easy. That's his weak point, IMO. In debates he will try to never answer a question (they ALL do, regardless of party). If he can be pressed and his answers are goofy, then he might slip.

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-13-2008, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
willyvic FTW.

With Hillary I think McCain wins, with Obama it's close, but McCain is still the underdog, IMO. For McCain to beat Obama I think Obama will need to really put his foot in his mouth, and get beaten up in some debates.

It's the democrat's race to lose, in other words.

Regarding the speeches mentioned, Obama talks about hope, etc, but hasn't actually said much about specific policies. Being positive, but not being required to explain HOW is easy. That's his weak point, IMO. In debates he will try to never answer a question (they ALL do, regardless of party). If he can be pressed and his answers are goofy, then he might slip.

True, but I think I'd rather go with Obama and hope he is sincere in his intentions (that would be a first in politics) than vote for Darth MCCain and the Empire....

Von_Rat
02-13-2008, 10:58 AM
i also agree with willyvic.

alot of dems like both obama and hillary. so its going to come down to who can beat mccain.

most polls show obama has the best chance. but then again the polls have been so wrong on so many things in this campaign its funny.

leitmotiv
02-13-2008, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
Another question from an intrigued foriegner -

Do you think if Mrs Clinton got in, Mr Clinton would keep a low profile as 'First Gentleman'? Is this having any bearing on matters? Would he been seen as an asset or a liability?

Recently Mr C took the center of the stage with his sustained and ruthless attacks on Obama. The attacks succeeded brilliantly (the Clinton's are nothing if not the most calculating low ball players in U.S. politics) by seemingly marginalizing Mr O due to his race. Latinos, who do not generally like blacks, loved it, and voted overwhelmingly for Hils in Nevada where the experts had predicted an O landslide. She continues to get 65-75% of the Latino vote. Well, this "triangulation" of the blacks did not go down well at all, and Bill was reproved by numerous important black leaders for his tactics. It was a typical cold-blooded Clinton decision---Latinos outnumber blacks in the U.S. Latino support is crucial to win. Thus, the blacks became expendable despite their long-standing loyalty to the Clintons.

This was the moment of truth for Bills and Hils: they had low-balled conservatives for years to the cheers of the Dems, but when they low-balled fellow Dems a certain shift occurred in their perception by many Dems. They were seen as cold, unsentimental thugs who will do anything to win.

In one fell swoop Hils lost most of the blacks, the kids, and the idealists. She is left with those who expect to get something from a Clinton victory.

This was a terrible error, and it also reminded the country that electing her meant electing him, and to many, this is simply impossible.

My take is that her biggest weakness is that she is NOT a politician. She has been imposed by the huge, wealthy, and well-organized Clinton machine like a Tammany candidate from the 19th century. She doesn't know how to woo voters. I saw her on TV after a primary victory. The crowd was cheering her with all its heart---they loved her---they wanted her to love them back---to stroke them as they stroked her. Real politicians LIVE for these moments---it's what it is all about. Not Hils. She stared at the crowd with her dead fish eyes and yelled over them to be quiet. Then she launched into a dreary, uninspiring speech. It was like a man having six crazed 20 yr old cheerleaders offer him everything, and he kicks them out of bed to discuss macro economics.

It will be Barak vs. McCain, and I 'spect Barak will kick Big John's posterior. I won't be grieved. Barak is one helluva bright guy. Unlike Jimmy Carter, I can see him embracing Realpolitik within a month of moving into the White House---just like what happened with JFK.

roybaty
02-13-2008, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by willyvic:
Personal thoughts:

If Hillary is in, McCain takes it.

If Obama is in, very close race. I honestly don't know which one of them will triumph.

WV. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

thefruitbat
02-13-2008, 11:10 AM
How different is McCains policies, to the Bush administration? Would it be a case of picking up where it was left off, or are their any substantial differences, that have become apparant?

Is the election going to be fought on the domestic front, or the international front??

I'm guessing, and this is guessing from the other side of the atlantic, that if the democrats win, it will mean much more changes to the staus quo, but i don't really know?

cheers fruitbat

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-13-2008, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:I'm guessing, and this is guessing from the other side of the atlantic, that if the democrats win, it will mean much more changes to the staus quo, but i don't really know?

cheers fruitbat

I don't know much about mccains policies as I don't care, but I sure hope your guess is right. The status quo sucks donkey reproductive organs and needs to change desperately.

horseback
02-13-2008, 12:03 PM
If McCain is chosen as the Republican candidate (and there is still hope that sanity will prevail), you can pretty much expect a large portion of the party's conservative core to sit on their hands on election day, unless there is a significant external threat or terrorist strike within the continental US, where his assumed military experience will be a greater asset. Otherwise, look for the press to turn on him and start reporting on his churlish behavior, sharp temper and autocratic attitude with those who disagree with him.

McCain has long been like the kid at a football game who sulks because he wasn't allowed to be the quarterback (the on-field leader), and therefore occasionally sabotages his own team out of spite.

For all the physical courage he displayed as a POW in Vietnam, he has been far too expedient politically for my tastes by playing to the Press (largely populated by numbskulls who have never had to do a real job & are more concerned with telling a 'story' than the actual events) which has rewarded him by building him up as a 'maverick'. His cooperative ventures with the Democrats have consistantly damaged his party, and in my opinion, the country

As a native southwesterner, I should point out that the term maverick refers to either a cow that the herd has rejected as a leader, and goes its own way, OR it's one that is simply too stupid to stay with the safety of its herd, and just wanders off to be coyote chow...

IMHO, the biggest difference between McCain & Hillary Clinton is that Hillary has fat ankles.

cheers

horseback

leitmotiv
02-13-2008, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
How different is McCains policies, to the Bush administration? Would it be a case of picking up where it was left off, or are their any substantial differences, that have become apparant?

Is the election going to be fought on the domestic front, or the international front??

I'm guessing, and this is guessing from the other side of the atlantic, that if the democrats win, it will mean much more changes to the staus quo, but i don't really know?

cheers fruitbat

I'd wager the difference will be that McC will woo the Dems, as he has in the Senate for years. He will be consternated and infuriated by partisan Dem attacks---he will take them personally. GW never gave two hoots for what the opposition thought of him. This made him a very strong leader. I'd wager McC will become disillusioned and vindictive. The relations between the two parties will sink to new lows. Add to this, he is not loved by Republican conservatives---this is why he will be defeated---they will not come out for him unless, by a miracle, Hils whips Barak.

Hils or McC means another term of classic U.S. intramural infighting. Like France in the '30's---we fiddle while Rome burns. Barak might just break the mold---or he will be a total, idealistic flop like Carter.

The U.S. is either going to get sorted or get b-----ed, no in between. We are out of time for games.

leitmotiv
02-13-2008, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
If McCain is chosen as the Republican candidate (and there is still hope that sanity will prevail), you can pretty much expect a large portion of the party's conservative core to sit on their hands on election day, unless there is a significant external threat or terrorist strike within the continental US, where his assumed military experience will be a greater asset. Otherwise, look for the press to turn on him and start reporting on his churlish behavior, sharp temper and autocratic attitude with those who disagree with him.

McCain has long been like the kid at a football game who sulks because he wasn't allowed to be the quarterback (the on-field leader), and therefore occasionally sabotages his own team out of spite.

For all the physical courage he displayed as a POW in Vietnam, he has been far too expedient politically for my tastes by playing to the Press (largely populated by numbskulls who have never had to do a real job & are more concerned with telling a 'story' than the actual events) which has rewarded him by building him up as a 'maverick'. His cooperative ventures with the Democrats have consistantly damaged his party, and in my opinion, the country

As a native southwesterner, I should point out that the term maverick refers to either a cow that the herd has rejected as a leader, and goes its own way, OR it's one that is simply too stupid to stay with the safety of its herd, and just wanders off to be coyote chow...

IMHO, the biggest difference between McCain & Hillary Clinton is that Hillary has fat ankles.

cheers

horseback


Beautiful. 100% Right. Perfect.

Tater-SW-
02-13-2008, 01:32 PM
I think that while McCain is not the ideal candidate, conservatives who chose to elect hillary/obama instead are making a huge mistake. He is certainly more conservative than either, even if not as conservative as many of us would prefer.

Some pundits are claiming that we "take on for the team" and then presumably we do better in midterm elections, and ideally run a "real" conservative in 2012. The price for this tactic will be 3+ Supreme Court Justices. Yes, McCain could nominate a moderate judge. The Republicans have a history of having judges that vote differently than expected. this is because they don't have a litmus test. Democrat judges NEVER turn right, by comparison. There are other issues, McCain said he'd veto any bill with earmarks, for example. Clinton is the queen of earmarks, 261 or something like that in one year (I think it was around half the total).

The reality in US politics is that there will be two choices, you vote for one, or you vote for the other (even if by inaction).

So as I see it, the tactic might be valid (shooting for midterms against the incumbent), but the price is terribly high.
tater

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-13-2008, 01:46 PM
and ideally run a "real" conservative in 2012.

Hmm, i wonder if it's a coincidence that the Mayan calendar shows the end of the world in 2012.....lol.

leitmotiv
02-13-2008, 01:50 PM
I am getting VERY nervous about accumulating evidence of possible nastiness in 2012.

Tater-SW-
02-13-2008, 01:52 PM
Yeah, someone in favor of minimal federal government in the US would certainly bring about "the end times."

Or are you confused about what a conservative in the US is?

Remember, the language used to describe "the extreme right" these days was Stalin's. Germany (at the time) was in competition with the CCCP and like all enemies of Stalin was branded as "right." What the press calls "the extreme right" in relation to racist, skinheaded (and other fashion choices) freaks is not "right" at all. The real thing was far left of the US since to control people that completely took a daddy state involved in their every action. We view socialism as giving personal liberty away to the State.

The whole "left/right" thing is not only not descriptive, it's just plain wrong.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

tater

Tater-SW-
02-13-2008, 01:55 PM
BTW, I never think the election is the end of the world. That's the way it goes here, every 4-8 years the government changes peacefully. I'd prefer not to get the SCOTUS loaded with guys making law, however.

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-13-2008, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Yeah, someone in favor of minimal federal government in the US would certainly bring about "the end times."

Or are you confused about what a conservative in the US is?

tater

Well, a minimal federal government would rock, too bad the dems or the republicans want that. The only damn difference between the two parties these days is the lip service they give. The so called conservitives haven't made any more moves toward smaller government than anyone else, they just like to say they do.

roybaty
02-13-2008, 02:00 PM
The one called tator speaks with wisdom. Right/Left is a difficult way to class people. I have a blend of opinions, I am an Independent. I am not thrilled with either party, I don't see much hope from what any of them are saying.

I really am worried about the future of my country no matter who is elected http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Tater-SW-
02-13-2008, 02:03 PM
Personally my biggest concern is the 900lb gorilla in the room. Entitlement spending.

The democrat (any of them) won't ever touch them, and I'm afraid McCain won't, either. Course a crazy old guy like him just might grab the "third rail" and hang on. I doubt it, but you never know.

tater

thefruitbat
02-13-2008, 02:16 PM
Thanks for all the replies, it's much more interesting hearing what you lot have to say about the elections, than the news rerports over here.

One thing they I find really striking, is that none of you seem to happy about who you are going to get, regardless of who it is, and are already paying lip service to 2012

Question, what's entitlement spending?

Also, i think i am unsure of what a conservative is, in the US, can you have conservative democrats and republicans? Don't think it seems to have the same meaning as here in the UK.

cheers fruitbat

MEGILE
02-13-2008, 02:22 PM
The political nomenclature can become misleading, because it mixes political ideology with fiscal policy (although there is often a link).

Tater-SW-
02-13-2008, 02:33 PM
"Entitlements" are social programs like social security, public health, etc. I bet many Americans if asked would think that the lion's share of US government spending is for the Pentagon, when in fact 2/3 of the Federal Budget is for such "non-discretionary" social programs. Of the remaining 1/3, only a little more than half is military.

I imagine many abroad have no idea what a large % of american healthcare is already public. It's around 40%.

Irish_Rogues
02-13-2008, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:

Also, i think i am unsure of what a conservative is, in the US, can you have conservative democrats and republicans? Don't think it seems to have the same meaning as here in the UK.

cheers fruitbat

Back in the day you used to have conservative democrats and republicans, but not really anymore. The democrats have moved far to the left and for the most part despise conservative values. This goes so far that they call members of their own party with conservative leanings "Blue Dogs" and use the word as it self as a slur against their enemies.

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-13-2008, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:

One thing they I find really striking, is that none of you seem to happy about who you are going to get, regardless of who it is, and are already paying lip service to 2012

cheers fruitbat

Yeah, noone has been happy with the government here for a long damn time. This used to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Now it's just a bunch of power hungry buisness men interested in nothing but lining thier wallets and cowing the public. The very basis of the government, the constitution of the united states of america, is only just an annoyance to the people in power and they do everythng thy can every single day to distract us and help us to forget that 99% of what they do should get them shot by the fireing squad. The people are no longer in control of the government as it was meant to be, the government is now in control of the people and from here it can only get worse barring outright revolution.

flyby_99th
02-13-2008, 02:54 PM
Being politically independent, I think some conservatives will vote a Democratic ticket just to punish the Republican party. Some will stay home. Somewill vote for McCain (rather him than DEM). I think Hill is skilled enough to be El Presidente, but will play the same old games as her predecessors. No real change there. I think Obama is smart enough to surround himself with talented people who can help make his ideas come to life, but without an overwhelming majority in both houses he will not get much done. No real change there. Of course the devil is in the details of political deal-making in either case.
The real pisser is that this insane concept of super_delegates who could override the popular vote of the party, and select a candidate in spite of the votes of the people (more deal-making). What's even more insane is the electoral college which would appoint a president in spite of the national popular vote. It's been done. Those in power are loathe to give it up so they hire politicians to do their bidding. We don't need more Machiavelian politics. We need a Cromwell, by god and by Godfrey!!
Flyby out

roybaty
02-13-2008, 03:00 PM
Don't get me started on super delegates http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

thefruitbat
02-13-2008, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by roybaty:
Don't get me started on super delegates http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Super delegates???? what prey tell are these defined as?

crucislancer
02-13-2008, 03:24 PM
If Obama get's the nod at the Dem convention, I'll vote for him. If it's Hillary......well, I'm going to have to do a lot of thinking about that one. McCain makes me uneasy, but so does Clinton. I'm just glad that Guliani is gone. That guy's a PoS.

knightflyte
02-13-2008, 03:26 PM
I still feel the electoral college is relevent. If it were abolished then why would a politician bother going to any cities other than NYC, LA, Austin, and a few other big cities? Talk about pandering.

How would the voice of other parts of the country be heard? How would their vote (no matter how small) matter?

The forefathers were wise in creating the electoral college.

Leave popularity votes to American Idol.... not American politics.

Korolov1986
02-13-2008, 04:18 PM
The problem (from my perspective) is that we have all these parties that pander only to a select few people and are completely out of touch with the majority of Americans. We don't ALL want to have 90% of our earnings taken away and given to somebody else, and likewise we don't ALL want to make abortion illegal, etc.

As per usual, policy is at one extreme or the other, rarely at the center. And so the pendulum swings.

Tater-SW-
02-13-2008, 04:26 PM
Yep. I can see Obama eliminating the payroll tax cap. That will hugely increase my taxes.

Bearcat99
02-13-2008, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
Another question from an intrigued foriegner -

Do you think if Mrs Clinton got in, Mr Clinton would keep a low profile as 'First Gentleman'? Is this having any bearing on matters? Would he been seen as an asset or a liability?

If Hillary wins the nomination and she is smart she will go with a Clinton/Obama ticket... that would insure a Democrat president for the next 12 years at least.. if not the next 16... it would silence once and for all the "experience" non issue with Obama (As if Hillary has "experience".. she was the first lady.. and she is a senator.. just like Obama)and she should have Bill as her secretary of state...

As for the Dems loosing it... well the Republicas beat themselves.... they had 8 years to prove that they were a party that was for the people... and they sucked up even more to the corporations... To quote the Republican Party patron saint Ronald Reagan... "Are you better off now tan you were 8 years ago?"

H@ll no.... They had the opportunity to prove something to the American public and they acted like frat boys sucking on a beer keg.... President Bush, Di(k "Darth Vader" Cheny and Don "sorry man but ur so outta here" Rumsfeld got us into this BS war.. that was totally unnecessary, and even to this very day the continue to call it "the war on terror"... there were no terorists in Iraq before we got there... as bad off as he was So D@mn Insane had those folks under lock and key and the only biological weapons of mass destruction we found were his to sons.

Of course my feelings about the war and my feelings about the troops are two TOTALLY different issues... just to head off any of that cr@p at the pass.... The absolute worse vote I EVER cast since I first began voting and which I also do regularly since I believe it is a civic duty.. and for me too many people thought my right to vote was worth a beating/lynching/jailing/rape for me to casually dismiss it and NOT exercise that duty, was for George W. Bush in 04, and this despite believing that they stole the 2000 election... like many I fell for the flag waving, we are at war so we cant change horses in mid stream okie doke BS...

Never again.... I have been followig Obama since the 04 Democratic convention... and as far as I am concerned he is one of those as real as it gets politicians.. a rarity in any generation... a breath of much needed fresh air in this one...

and to answer the ortignal poster's question... no the Hillary Obama question wont matter... since the current fight is to decide who will be nominated to run on the Democratic ticket... there can be only one nominee for president... so one or the other will win the monination. Then the November election will be between mostlikely McCain and whomever and who ever winsd the Dem nod and their running mate.

Great points Joe...

han freak solo
02-13-2008, 04:34 PM
Our country seems tired of the son that followed father Bush. I really don't see us putting in office the wife of a past president as well.

We need someone not linked to a past president, regardless if by family or if by marriage. Personally, Hillary has gotten under my skin way before she ever became a presidential candidate.

News stories are seeing Obama as finally finishing her off. Here in Texas we actually have a primary coming that might matter. I've never voted in a primary before, but I think I'll vote this time.

I too believe it will be Obama vs. McCain. I'll have to actually see what ground they stand before I make my decision. I haven't been watching the details so far because it almost never matters in Texas until the real election day.

han freak solo
02-13-2008, 04:38 PM
I really don't want to see Obama and Clinton sharing the Democratic ticket. I want to see Obama as the Presidential candidate and someone other than Hillary as the V.P. candidate.

crucislancer
02-13-2008, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
Another question from an intrigued foriegner -

Do you think if Mrs Clinton got in, Mr Clinton would keep a low profile as 'First Gentleman'? Is this having any bearing on matters? Would he been seen as an asset or a liability?

If Hillary wins the nomination and she is smart she will go with a Clinton/Obama ticket... that would insure a Democrat president for the next 12 years at least.. if not the next 16... it would silence once and for all the "experience" non issue with Obama (As if Hillary has "experience".. she was the first lady.. and she is a senator.. just like Obama)and she should have Bill as her secretary of state...

As for the Dems loosing it... well the Republicas beat themselves.... they had 8 years to prove that they were a party that was for the people... and they sucked up even more to the corporations... To quote the Republican Party patron saint Ronald Reagan... "Are you better off now tan you were 8 years ago?"

H@ll no.... They had the opportunity to prove something to the American public and they acted like frat boys sucking on a beer keg.... President Bush, Di(k "Darth Vader" Cheny and Don "sorry man but ur so outta here" Rumsfeld got us into this BS war.. that was totally unnecessary, and even to this very day the continue to call it "the war on terror"... there were no terorists in Iraq before we got there... as bad off as he was So D@mn Insane had those folks under lock and key and the only biological weapons of mass destruction we found were his to sons.

Of course my feelings about the war and my feelings about the troops are two TOTALLY different issues... just to head off any of that cr@p at the pass.... The absolute worse vote I EVER cast since I first began voting and which I also do regularly since I believe it is a civic duty.. and for me too many people thought my right to vote was worth a beating/lynching/jailing/rape for me to casually dismiss it and NOT exercise that duty, was for George W. Bush in 04, and this despite believing that they stole the 2000 election... like many I fell for the flag waving, we are at war so we cant change horses in mid stream okie doke BS...

Never again.... I have been followig Obama since the 04 Democratic convention... and as far as I am concerned he is one of those as real as it gets politicians.. a rarity in any generation... a breath of much needed fresh air in this one...

and to answer the ortignal poster's question... no the Hillary Obama question wont matter... since the current fight is to decide who will be nominated to run on the Democratic ticket... there can be only one nominee for president... so one or the other will win the monination. Then the November election will be between mostlikely McCain and whomever and who ever winsd the Dem nod and their running mate.

Great points Joe... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+10,000.

Tater-SW-
02-13-2008, 04:42 PM
I don't see an Obama-Clinton ticket, frankly. I don't see her taking 2d fiddle, and I don't think being connected to her would help him (though it would help HER to be connected to him).

Tater-SW-
02-13-2008, 04:48 PM
I'd like to see McCain pick a conservative VP. JC Watts, maybe (if he could be convinced)

jarink
02-13-2008, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Regarding the speeches mentioned, Obama talks about hope, etc, but hasn't actually said much about specific policies.

You could say that for pretty much all the candidates this year. I think the Dems have been a bit more guilty of it however.

I'm seriously considering writing in Bob (or perhaps Elizabeth) Dole when I vote.

bun-bun195333
02-13-2008, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
Super delegates???? what prey tell are these defined as?

The Democratic party has a large portion of politicians (20%) that are not elected delegates from the caucuses but are given delegate status for their loyalty to the party. They will be the deciding votes in the convention and howls of protest will be heard if Hillary! is chosen by them and Obama has the majority of the elected delegates. "The will of the people subverted."

Airmail109
02-13-2008, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by bun-bun195333:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
Super delegates???? what prey tell are these defined as?

The Democratic party has a large portion of politicians (20%) that are not elected delegates from the caucuses but are given delegate status for their loyalty to the party. They will be the deciding votes in the convention and howls of protest will be heard if Hillary! is chosen by them and Obama has the majority of the elected delegates. "The will of the people subverted." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they do that, the democrats WILL lose the election. Period.

bun-bun195333
02-13-2008, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bun-bun195333:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
Super delegates???? what prey tell are these defined as?

The Democratic party has a large portion of politicians (20%) that are not elected delegates from the caucuses but are given delegate status for their loyalty to the party. They will be the deciding votes in the convention and howls of protest will be heard if Hillary! is chosen by them and Obama has the majority of the elected delegates. "The will of the people subverted." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they do that, the democrats WILL lose the election. Period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possibly, but not probably... It will blow over and the folks who supported Obama will vote for Hillary in the general election.
Personally, I hope that Obama gets the Democratic nomination - I dread eight years of President Hillary Clinton followed by Jeb Bush versus Chelsea Clinton.

T_O_A_D
02-13-2008, 07:12 PM
Well myself I fear for Hillary or Obama getting into office.

I'm not predjudice at all, but there are plenty out there that are.

Our first Woman, or Black person that gets in, I fear will be a target for some stupid jerk.

One thing for sure, it doesn't matter who is President, if they get Assasinated it hurts the country deeply.

Now they keep saying we need to work hard, to bring this country back.

The first one of these folks that gets in and is able to remove all taxes from our Overtime, and bonus's. The USA working force will work all week to reach the 40 hour mark and be willing to work for the Overtime that is ours rightfully tax free.

Business owners will be able to actully have smaller staffs, and keep quality American people in place, and no need to hire the cheap ilegall's to keep things going. The workers will have more money in their pocket, and will spend it on luxuries, thus bringing the economy back.

I see no reason why the government should reap more harvest, just because we are willing to work harder and longer to benefit ourselves. They should be happy with the taxes taken from the Required full time 40 hour week.

The Government should only be the Administrators of Civiliztion, and not Fat cats getting fatter, and receiveing fat retirement plans, instead of Social Security like the rest of us citizens.

Ok Rant over. @ the moment.

Casey1976
02-13-2008, 07:52 PM
This topic has got me fired up for a rant...I apologize to anyone that may be offended in advance for what I'm about to say...

Like every other election in my voting life, no matter what party wins...the American people lose. I'd like to believe the "I'm a catalyst for change" speeches being given from both parties, however I've heard it time & time again...and it has only raised my cynical view of American politics and politicians every time I've heard it. Until the Dems decide who their candidate is gong to be, I'm not prepared to make my choice yet...

McCain vs XXXX, it really doesen't matter. We'll still be stuck with a baby-kissing, candy-stealing, empty-promise delivering, silver spoon in mouth politician that will only be concerned with repaying campaign contributions with political favors to the enigmatic "Big Business" types, just like it's always been...Republican Party or Democratic Party the same...Show me an honest politician, and I'll show you a flying pig.

It comes down to who do I think will screw our country up the least in the next four years...and right now, we're all looking pretty screwed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

~KC~

roybaty
02-13-2008, 08:50 PM
I don't trust McCain either. They are all subverted. It's done, looks like we won't out last Rome by a long shot.

han freak solo
02-13-2008, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by T_O_A_D:
Our first Woman, or Black person that gets in, I fear will be a target for some stupid jerk.

Very true. I try not to bring it up, but that is very likely. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Loco-S
02-13-2008, 10:22 PM
I havent registered as a voter yet, but having this flag at his office has voided any good will I had with this guy:
http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/29/20080211obamachehoustonsv4.jpg

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?con...de=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1 (http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=5700252&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1)

Casey1976
02-13-2008, 10:34 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Che!!!!

I don't think we're in a "Rome" situation yet...George W. might be 20 gallons of dumb in a 10 gallon hat, but he's no Nero, and neither are McCain or Hil-Bama. There's the possibility that, and I really HOPE this happens, that the next President will be elected for their ability to lead responsibly and make policy decisions based on the need of the population of this country (legal or illegal population). But I'm afraid that people have a mindset of: Republican = Bad...must vote Democrat. Not because of policy, but because of reactionary partisan b.s. that we ourselves criticize the politicians for doing during their campaign. I'm sure we here in the States get sick of the "smear campaign" tactics that erupt closer to election day...it serves no purpose than to breed more negativity in our electorial process...in fact, it highlights it and breeds more partisan resentment...which leads to a failure to compromise and nothing changes...a breakdown of the Democratic Process.

I just hope somebody will prove me wrong on election day and we will get good leadership for the first time in my life.

I'm just wary of candidates that support the death penalty, but condemn abortion...bit hypocritical don't you think?

If I had to choose today, I'd vote for Bill 'n' Opus.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff311/casey1976_01/bill_n_opus.jpg

~KC~

Loco-S
02-13-2008, 11:38 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v306/Kurbalaganda/commieskill.jpg

Bearcat99
02-13-2008, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
I don't see an Obama-Clinton ticket, frankly. I don't see her taking 2d fiddle, and I don't think being connected to her would help him (though it would help HER to be connected to him).

I dont either... I said Clinton / Obama



Originally posted by T_O_A_D:
Well myself I fear for Hillary or Obama getting into office.

I'm not predjudice at all, but there are plenty out there that are.

Our first Woman, or Black person that gets in, I fear will be a target for some stupid jerk.

One thing for sure, it doesn't matter who is President, if they get Assasinated it hurts the country deeply.

Now they keep saying we need to work hard, to bring this country back.

The first one of these folks that gets in and is able to remove all taxes from our Overtime, and bonus's. The USA working force will work all week to reach the 40 hour mark and be willing to work for the Overtime that is ours rightfully tax free.

Business owners will be able to actully have smaller staffs, and keep quality American people in place, and no need to hire the cheap ilegall's to keep things going. The workers will have more money in their pocket, and will spend it on luxuries, thus bringing the economy back.

I see no reason why the government should reap more harvest, just because we are willing to work harder and longer to benefit ourselves. They should be happy with the taxes taken from the Required full time 40 hour week.

The Government should only be the Administrators of Civiliztion, and not Fat cats getting fatter, and receiveing fat retirement plans, instead of Social Security like the rest of us citizens.

Ok Rant over. @ the moment.

I dont see anyone doing that to Hillary.... but Obama... yes it does worry me... but my take is... if he has the balls to go for it.. then he has my full support.. He is not a stupid man and he knows the risks... and I would also rather hope that we are beyond that... however 1963, 1965 & 1968 loom heavy on my mind.

Enforcer572005
02-14-2008, 12:19 AM
That Che/Cuban flag at Obama's office represents the same thing to me that a Nazi flag with Adolph on it would represent if you opened a GOP candidate's office door (even if he knew nothing about it). It's a scary indication to me that the Dem candidates and power base are far more to the left than even the most Evangelical/rightwing Republican is to the right. That really bothers me. I can't believe anyone in their right mind in that party would let that thing stay there in plain site.

As a life long Republican activist, state delegate, and oft published editorialist (in our local paper at least), I have become very discouraged at what the party of Ronald Reagan has decayed to. Run by oil company guys that think we can go to war (rightly or wrongly) without having a national mobilization (read draft and tripling of the military to fight it)

To oversimplifiy a bit, I'm kinda glad McCain has the lead now (8 yrs late) despite his many faults/defects. But given a choice between a bunch of Marxist lawyers who despise the armed forces and all who serve in them (Hillary), religious fanatic lawyers who wanna make this country a theocracy (the other Republican candidates) , and a guy whose supporters have a Che flag on the wall and who sounds like Jimmy Carter (I hope I am wrong), verses a....

Combat pilot who turned down an opportunity to avoid 7 yrs in the Hanoi Hilton out of loyalty to his comrades.

I know he is flawed, very much so, but there is really no choice to me.

But please keep in mind that the president is actually rather limited in his power. Things really don't change that much regardless of who is elected, with the possible exception of Reagan. So don't expect that much to change.Power is not in the hands you may think it is in.

I do agree with alot I've seen on here from both sides of the sprectrum. Power is totally abused here, and the Constitution is used as toilet paper by both parties. That's why I gave up being a state delegate, I saw what was happening.

Enforcer572005
02-14-2008, 12:30 AM
BTW, I dunno if our overseas cousins are aware of McCain's direct link to WW2. The reason the N.Viets offered to release him is because he is the son of Admiral John McCain, Commander air SW pacific. He figured heavily in the Guadalcanal cmpn, often taking his personal PBY into Henderson between air attacks loaded with O2 bottles for the Wildcats, and taking out as many of the worse wounded as could be crammed onboard.

He made several extended stays there and spent alot of time in bunkers during air attacks. It was his leadership ability that helped find the resources and cut through the massive red tape nonsense of the divided Pacific command that led to victory in the Solomons. The N. Viets respected him highly and so offered to let his son go.

The admiral was a crusty old bird (google him and take a look at this character) who was a life long sailor. He was so worn out by the end of the war that he died just a few days after his return I believe.

Von_Rat
02-14-2008, 12:33 AM
and she should have Bill as her secretary of state...
__________________________________________________ _____________


i believe that since the kennedys its no longer legal to have a family member in the cabinet.

leitmotiv
02-14-2008, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
and she should have Bill as her secretary of state...
__________________________________________________ _____________





And, Caligula, in his wisdom, made his horse a

Roman Senator.

LEBillfish
02-14-2008, 01:10 AM
Personally, I don't see the republicans winning....People want a change from Bush and they equate republican with Bush so no win there IMLTHO.....(Just like Ford vs. Carter after Nixon).

If Clinton wins, then time to go elsewhere. Frankly, I feel B.C. was a 2 faced, back biting, P.C., self serving jerk.....Yet H.C. 10 fold and desperately wanting power simply to wield it. In fact, I personally believe if B.C. had not had hopes of becoming president, she would of been gone looking elsewhere for her stepping stone to power.......Fear this person in office.

Obama on the other hand (though republican the norm in this house) I feel might make a good president........and I actually believe he has a VERY good cance of winning if getting the nomination.

Now lastly.....and this simply my own bias and conspiracy beliefs (plus deeply driven by my dislike of H.C.)......I do not believe as many conspiracy thinkers do, that if Obama wins he'll be assasinated...........However, I would not be surprised in the least if he wins the nomination, and to try and make a strong party ticket took on H.Clinton as his V.P. running mate, and won.....That within a year or 2 at the most there would be an attempt on his life......guess who I believe would be behind it?

That is how much I don't trust H.C..

leitmotiv
02-14-2008, 03:09 AM
RIGHT ON THE MONEY, BF. 100%.

Bearcat99
02-14-2008, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
If Clinton wins, then time to go elsewhere. Frankly, I feel B.C. was a 2 faced, back biting, P.C., self serving jerk.....Yet H.C. 10 fold and desperately wanting power simply to wield it. In fact, I personally believe if B.C. had not had hopes of becoming president, she would of been gone looking elsewhere for her stepping stone to power.......Fear this person in office.

Obama on the other hand (though republican the norm in this house) I feel might make a good president........and I actually believe he has a VERY good cance of winning if getting the nomination.

Now lastly.....and this simply my own bias and conspiracy beliefs (plus deeply driven by my dislike of H.C.)......I do not believe as many conspiracy thinkers do, that if Obama wins he'll be assasinated...........However, I would not be surprised in the least if he wins the nomination, and to try and make a strong party ticket took on H.Clinton as his V.P. running mate, and won.....That within a year or 2 at the most there would be an attempt on his life......guess who I believe would be behind it?

That is how much I don't trust H.C..

I agree... LMAO... K2 when I read

I feel B.C. was a 2 faced, back biting, P.C., self serving jerk
my initial response was WTF.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
then after a second I realized you measnt ther other B.C.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
02-14-2008, 07:08 AM
"my initial response was WTF....
then after a second I realized you measnt ther other B.C."

British soccer chant to the tune of 'Blue Moon'

"B.C. there's only one B.C...." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Interesting thread so far.

LEBillfish
02-14-2008, 07:54 AM
Oh, p.s.......I personally believe Obama becoming president would generate some very, very positive big changes not just in this country, yet the world......I'm not saying for African Americans, yet partially (like .0001%) due to because he is....Yet I believe he would inspire some new opinions and ways of thinking because of how he carries himself on many fronts.

Obama becoming president would cause serious civil striffe is some cases, yet that's a good thing as it would generate a final transition/change from the old to the new. In the end I believe, some old educational, racial, religious, nationalistic, economic, etc. last hold out barriers & bias will begin to fall, it generating not change through his action, yet the action of those inspired. Inspired not by his race, nor beliefs, nor actions.....Yet by simple example.

If he wins I believe it will be a slightly difficult, yet in the end very positive evolution for all of society.

han freak solo
02-14-2008, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
is how much I don't trust H.C..

+1

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif at Hillary

willyvic
02-14-2008, 08:13 AM
A little tongue and cheek here but if the Democrats win the White House the Rednecks in this country are gonna feint dead away...


WV.

LEBillfish
02-14-2008, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by willyvic:
A little tongue and cheek here but if the Democrats win the White House the Rednecks in this country are gonna feint dead away...


WV.


Funny thing is (disregarding independant tickets/parties).....Rednecks have typically been democrat in voting http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

jarink
02-14-2008, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Yet H.C. 10 fold and desperately wanting power simply to wield it.

Maybe she just wants "her" house back.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Seriously, I agree. I can think of no other reason that Hillary has taken the time, trouble and money to first transplant herself in New York to be come a senator and then run for President.

A quick aside...
I think Obama's guilty of this transplant business, too. What the heck did he ever care about Illinois before he ran for office here? I feel both of them were "planted" in their respective districts because their party knew that whoever ran there as a Dem would win. There are others that have done this, too, including a few Republicans. Shortly after she was elected I wrote my reps and told them I felt it highlighted the need for there to be long-term residency requirements for elected officials. I think no one can honestly understand the issues in their district or truly represent their constituents without having lived in the same place as them for at least 5-6 years.

OK, where was I? Oh, yes. Hillary is obviously intent on gaining power for it's own sake. I shudder when I think of some of the stuff she came up with in her less-than-official capacities as first lady now being put forth again when/if she has the actual power to enact them.

If she gets elected, say bye-bye to any tax relief and hello to even more taxes, especially if you own a business or make more than $100,000 a year. (Neither of those conditions applies to me, far from it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif , but I still don't like the idea of an increasingly socialist state.)

roybaty
02-14-2008, 10:07 AM
Damn carpetbaggers.